• Titanfall 2's very detailed system requirements tell you everything you need to know
    11 replies, posted
[url]http://www.pcgamer.com/titanfall-2s-very-detailed-system-requirements-tell-you-everything-you-need-to-know[/url]
45 gigs? I mean that's less than titanfall 1 but jesus what's with games and the sudden jump from 10-20 gigs to this?
[QUOTE=Limed00d;51089818]45 gigs? I mean that's less than titanfall 1 but jesus what's with games and the sudden jump from 10-20 gigs to this?[/QUOTE] If it's anything like Titanfall 1 it's because it has uncompressed audio for every locale. If they learned anything from Titanfall 1 then it's probably due to the fact that textures are way bigger now because consoles actually have decent memory this time around.
[QUOTE=Limed00d;51089818]45 gigs? I mean that's less than titanfall 1 but jesus what's with games and the sudden jump from 10-20 gigs to this?[/QUOTE] New console generation using bluray discs. Console ports are also suddenly jumping up in memory requirements, due to the 8GB unified memory in both consoles.
higher quality textures, audio etc.
Textures grow exponentially in memory footprint with each subsequent increase in power of 2 resolution, 4096 -> 8192 is way bigger a jump than 2048 -> 4096. To support higher resolutions like 4k and such everything has to go way up, poly count (relatively cheap space wise), texture size (not cheap, and remember most models take ~3 textures at least at this point for most things, so it's all compounded), and then throw in all the audio and blam you have a big ass game.
[QUOTE=Limed00d;51089818]45 gigs? I mean that's less than titanfall 1 but jesus what's with games and the sudden jump from 10-20 gigs to this?[/QUOTE] Moore's Law, essentially. Games will only start using higher and higher quality assets, and with more and more people getting access to higher capacity storage, faster internet speeds, and more powerful hardware, it makes sense that developers would become less bound by storage space requirements. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if, in 10 years, the average size of a PC game goes up to 250 GB, and the average hard drive (probably full on SSDs by then) size is somewhere around 50 TB. Probably more than that even. Keep in mind, there was a time when people thought 1 GB for a game was "ridiculous", and now we look at that like it's nothing. Hell, even my shitty connection can download a 1 GB game in half an hour, and my 3 TB drive has plenty of space for it.
6 GB of VRAM for Recommended, what the fuck?
[QUOTE=Rahu X;51090123]Moore's Law, essentially. Games will only start using higher and higher quality assets, and with more and more people getting access to higher capacity storage, faster internet speeds, and more powerful hardware, it makes sense that developers would become less bound by storage space requirements. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if, in 10 years, the average size of a PC game goes up to 250 GB, and the average hard drive (probably full on SSDs by then) size is somewhere around 50 TB. Probably more than that even. Keep in mind, there was a time when people thought 1 GB for a game was "ridiculous", and now we look at that like it's nothing. Hell, even my shitty connection can download a 1 GB game in half an hour, and my 3 TB drive has plenty of space for it.[/QUOTE] I highly doubt they'll get that large. Especially since we're closer than ever to achieving photo-realism in real time productions. There's also the cost to produce vs. profits to consider.
[QUOTE=GHOST!!!!;51091059]6 GB of VRAM for Recommended, what the fuck?[/QUOTE] gpu's have 8gb vram now are people actually surprised that computers are getting faster for real?
Here I am with GTX 760 2GB and no money for new GPU, surprisingly 760 has been enough for me these days.
My 780 has 3 gb of VRAM.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.